Search Results

1. Gilbert - Horahora 1A3B (2017) 158 Taitokerau MB 69 (18 TTK 69) [pdf, 839 KB]

   ...addition, the Court must be satisfied that: 5 2 Sione – Te Hapua 24 (2000) 4 Taitokerau Appellate MB 275 (4 APWH 275) at 276; Rudolph v Reti – Otetao B3A2 [2011] Maori Appellate Court MB 143 (2011 APPEAL 143). 3 McCarthy – Utakura No. 9 (2008) 124 Whangarei MB 84 (124 WH 84). 4 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, s 329(1). 5 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, s 329(2). 158 Taitokerau MB 81 (a) The owners have had sufficient notice and o...

2. Reedy - Waitangi A1A1 (2003) 66 Ruatōria MB 48 (66 RUS 48) [pdf, 857 KB]

   ...section 18/93 are less obvious. What I do accept is that there was a will in this case where Tuterangi's intention has been clearly articulated, that there are succession orders giving effect to that intention and that the applicant could have appealed that decision, and or applied to contest the will in the High Court. He has chosen instead to file proceedings of this nature. But that is his right and nothing further can be made of that. The respondents seek to have the application...

3. Brokenshaw - Te Kaha B6X2 (2003) 81 Ōpōtiki MB 18 (81 OPO 18) [pdf, 891 KB]

   ...held previously that under s18(1 ) (a)/93 the Court has power to make a determination as to entitlement or ownership and to follow that by making an order under the appropriate section of the Act so as to give effect to that determination. (See Re An Appeal by Ngahuia Tawhai [1998] NZAR 459,471) What the Maori Land Court should do with such applications is to review and consider the particular circumstances of the case to determine such claims. (See for example Re Okurupatu B4B2A Block (2...

4. CAC 409 v Brady [2019] NZREADT 21 (23 May 2019) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...the Authority within 20 working days of the date of this decision. [2019] NZREADT 21 - Ball & Brady - publishing [56] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Act, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. ___________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson ____________________ Ms N Dangen Member _________...

5. Kani v MacDonald - Waimarama 3A6B6B Inc. (2021) 88 Takitimu MB 148 (88 TKT 148) [pdf, 331 KB]

   ...of the incorporation’s annual accounts; it was simply a question of costs, given the losses that had been made in recent years. 8 Watson v Parker - The Proprietors of Torere 64 Incorporated [2015] Māori Appellate Court MB 543 (2015 APPEAL 543) 9 82 Tākitimu MB 164-180 (82 TKT 164-180) at 169 88 Tākitimu MB 156 Kōrerorero Discussion [24] Section 277 of the Act states: 277 Appointment and duties of auditor (1) The shareholders of a large Maori incorporation...

6. 2021-03-15 D-G of Conservation opening subs [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...was intended when these flows were inserted into the RPW they would apply from October 2021 at the latest. 41. Mr de Pelsemaeker rejects the application of Schedule 2A minimum flows in relevant catchments, stating this is likely to reduce the appeal of the controlled activity pathway35. 42. By contrast, the evidence of Dr Allibone appeared to suggest that many Schedule 2A catchment deemed permit holders are currently operating and applying a de facto minimum flow regime36. 4...

7. Te Moni - Wharepouri Te Moni [2020] Chief Judge's MB 544 (2020 CJ 544) [pdf, 379 KB]

   ...and (b) If so, is it necessary in the interests of justice to remedy any mistake or omission. 14 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 15 [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) 2020 Chief Judge’s MB 555 Did the Registrar make a mistake or was there was an omission in the presentation of facts? Kōrero - Discussion [14] The first issue is answered by reference to the application filed and...

8. Jarrett - Succession to Ngapeeti Haora [2020] Chief Judge's MB 561 (2020 CJ 561) [pdf, 311 KB]

   ...4 Ashwell - Rawinia or Lavinia Ashwell (nee Russell) [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209 (2009 CJ 209) at [15] 5 Tau v Nga Whanau O Morven & Glenavy - Waihao 903 Section IX Block [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) at [61] 2020 Chief Judge’s MB 572 the attached schedule reflects the agreement of the parties as the writing is hard to decipher. Furthermore, in the section relating to Ngapeke 1J2B2B2 the word “Esme” appears alon

9. Hamblyn v Auckland City Council [pdf, 53 KB]

   ...plans and that the bearer did not comply with the required standards. Having made those findings, Mr Vaughan must be held to have a degree of personal liability for actual construction defects. [46] Decisions from the High Court and Court of Appeal have all established that to be personally liable, a director needs to either assume some personal responsibility or needs to be directly involved in carrying out, supervising and/or controlling the defective work that has result...

10. [2019] NZEmpC 132 Chief Executive of Manukau Institute of Technology v Zivaljevic [pdf, 300 KB]

    ...provide that written statement within 14 days of receiving the Employee's request. 15.7 In the event the matter is not resolved by mediation, the matter may be referred to the Employment Relations Authority for decision. Either party may appeal the decision of the Employment Relations Authority to the Employment Court[.] [52] Mr Zivaljevic’s evidence was that, when his employment was terminated, he was initially focussed on the substantive issues, in particular around rede...